The islands of the Persian Gulf: a dispute revived by Tehran's ideological ambitions

Text by: Ehsan Manoochehri

14 min

When at the end of the 1960s, the British government decided to end its protectorate on the Truce Coast, the Shah of Iran asserted his preeminence in the region and "took possession" of Abu Moussa, the Great and from the Little Tomb, three islands in the Persian Gulf. Three islands today claimed by the United Arab Emirates.

Publicity

The President of the United Nations Security Council , Sierra Leonean Ismael Byne Taylor-Kamara, opens the Council meeting, held on Thursday, December 9, 1971. It is 3:30 pm in New York. He declares that he was called upon to urgently examine "  the situation which has arisen In the Persian Gulf. Thus, in diplomatic language, as usual, he refers to the occupation, ten days rather, of the three islands of the Persian Gulf, Great and Small Tomb and Abu Moussa, by the Iranian imperial army. Iran had always considered these islands to be an integral part of its territory and, therefore, its military operations at the dawn of November 30 were only the fair return of things, as some neighboring countries, and especially distant ones, came demand their return to “Arab” sovereignty.  

It was Algeria, Iraq, Libya and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen which, invoking Arab solidarity, seized the Council in this regard. The emirate of Ras al-Khayma, in whose name Grande and Petite Tomb are claimed, did not yet have an international legal existence and the emirate of Sharjah had joined or had resigned itself to a sovereignty-sharing agreement with Iran on Abu Moussa, against an annual aid of three million dollars, even dispatching the brother of the emir in person to welcome the Iranian troops. Like Ras al-Khayma, the Emirate of Sharjah and the five other principalities that would form the United Arab Emirates had not yet achieved independence when the Iranian army landed on the three islands. . They were still under the British protectorate, although for only two more days.

The Shah of Iran, who two years earlier had renounced his claim on Bahrain, leaving this iconic “fourteenth province” of Iran to achieve independence, was eager to assert his preeminence in the region and, with the approval of the great Western powers and the resignation of Saudi Arabia, had come to an agreement with London to replace the British troops who were going to leave the Truce Coast before the end of December 1971. He had not concealed his ambitions from then on. 1968, when the Labor government of Harold Wilson spoke of its desire to no longer maintain British bases in the region. And He had warned all neighboring countries and the international community of his intention to "  retake possession  " of the three islands and ensure the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, when in March 1971, the government Edward Heath's curator had confirmed the departure of the British forces on schedule.

At the meeting of the Security Council, the condemnations and diatribes of the "progressive" Arab countries allied with the Soviet Union are addressed as much to Iran as to Great Britain. Mr. El-Shibib, the representative of Iraq, considers that the occupation of the three islands is "  a striking demonstration of the collusion existing between Iran and the government of the United Kingdom with a view to transferring the colonial role to Iran. that Britain has played in this region for over three centuries  ”.

The Iraqi representative assures us that these islands "  have always been under Arab jurisdiction  "; that of Yemen, Mr. Ismail, affirms that they must be regarded "  as being the prolongation of the Arab continent  ". Mr. Maghribi, the Libyan delegate, in the name of “  the Arab position  ” condemns “  the occupation of the Arab islands […] by Iran  ” and that of Algeria, Mr. Rahal, speaks of “  the demands […] of the Arab countries  », Thus attributing the sovereignty of the claimed territories to an unknown abstract representation as a subject of international law.

The Iraqi representative recalls that the Iranian claims on these islands are based on "  three main assertions and assumptions  " which are "  the alleged historical rights, the fact of filling an alleged political vacuum and finally the strategic value of these islands  ".

Historical rights

It is true that the two parties evoke “  historic rights  ” on the three islands, but neither produces irrefutable proof of its claims. The maps of one are contradicted by those of the other, extracts from contradictory historical and geographic treatises are evoked by both and each, according to its interests, goes back in history, to attribute itself sovereignty over disputed territories.

If the Iranians evoke the reconquest of the Persian Gulf region after the departure of the Portuguese by Shah Abbas I in 1602, the "Arab" part insists, rightly, that the islands claimed by Iran were under the authority of the Sheikh of Lingeh of the Qassimi (or Qawassim) family reigning in Ras el-Kheymah. The Sheikh of Lingeh was, however, a vassal of the Shah of Iran and paid him tribute to exercise his administration over the islands.

If for the Iranian representative, Mr. AK Afshar, “  these islands were neighbors of Iran  ”, in the eyes of the Iraqi delegate “  in matters of international law, the distance [had] never justified such claims  ”.

It is also true that the Shah of Iran intended to fill the "  power vacuum  " created by the withdrawal of British troops from the region and to ensure the safety of navigation in the Persian Gulf. The Nixon doctrine (from Guam) announced in July 1969, consisting in strengthening the material resources of allied countries so that they could assume their own defense in possible regional crises, suited him perfectly. A defense program of more than a billion dollars consolidated the country's military might in preparation for the British withdrawal and, as the New York Times wrote on June 25, 1971, "  to counteract Soviet influence and that the Arab revolutionaries could undertake in the Persian Gulf  ”.

"  Demonstration of military power  "

To fully assume this mission, which he has taken on with the support of his Western allies, the Shah of Iran considered it inevitable that the Iranian security forces should be able to freely exercise their authority over all the islands located near the waterways. Had he not mentioned in October 1971, a little over a month before the occupation of the three islands, the possibility "  for a small group of men to occupy [certain strategic positions on the islands] at the using a boat and a bazooka [and] threatening navigation in those waters  ”?[ Kayhan International, October 23, 1971].

The representative of Algeria rightly recalls that "  the Iranian occupation took place even before the declaration of independence of the Emirates  " and that of the Emirates, Mr. Pachachi, whose country had just been admitted that very morning to the United Nations. , reveals that  his country's “  proclamation of independence ” had been delayed because the Iranian government had warned that it “would  not recognize the Union if the dispute over the islands was not settled  ”. The United Arab Emirates, the most directly concerned by this dispute, had not joined the other Arab countries and had not asked them to present its "demands" to the Security Council. The Emirati delegate, the most moderate of all in his remarks, indicated that the Iranian government had been informed that the United Arab Emirates, once it became an independent state, could negotiate with Iran and that "  these negotiations would perhaps be fruitful, allowing this territorial dispute to be settled amicably  ”. He deplores "  the use of force and the humiliation that this unnecessary manifestation of military power has inflicted on the populations of the Gulf  ".

But this "  demonstration of military power  " does not appear to have been "  unnecessary  " from the Iranian point of view. According to Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, geopolitical researcher and professor at the Tehran Normal College, “  the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, knew full well that Bahrain's return to Iran was no longer possible after more than a century and half of separation and he had therefore conditioned, in his negotiations with Great Britain, his consent to the accession of Bahrain to independence to the reconquest of the three islands by Iran. But this independence had left a bitter taste with part of the population of Iran. This country intended to replace the British Empire in the region and this show of force, when a dozen principalities would emerge on the southern shore of the Persian Gulf, seemed to him the most visible and perhaps the most convincing means of establish its superiority, especially since this was done with the consent of Western countries.

UK accused of treason

It is not without reason that before the United Nations Security Council, the protesting Arab countries are attacking the United Kingdom more violently than the Iranian government. The Iraqi representative accuses the British Empire of "  perfidy, scuttling and sowing discord and hostility  " because "  Iran ... settled its claim by force just before the Great Britain's protection treaties. Brittany with the Emirates under treaty regime end  ”. “  Under these conditions ,” added the delegate of Kuwait, Mr. Bishara, the responsibility of Great Britain to protect the territorial integrity of the Emirates has not been honored although the treaties have not been abrogated.  "The representative of Libya, the most vehement with that of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, indicates that"  Great Britain violated the treaties which it had imposed itself on the Sheikhats of the Arabian Gulf  "thus showing"  its true nature, moreover known to the whole world for centuries, [that of] divide and reign, hypocrisy, betrayal and massacres  ”.

The representative of the United Kingdom in the Security Council, Sir Colin Crowe, wishes to “  put this issue in context  ”. He specifies that from the first decisions taken at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the following decade to withdraw British forces from the Persian Gulf, "the main concern  " of his government "  had been to ensure that stability, that our presence in the region had helped to maintain for nearly 150 years, continues after our departure  ”. For the British government, “  two important conditions were essential for this goal to be achieved: first, that the nine States concerned […] most of which were too small to be politically and economically viable on their own, succeed in s 'to unite in a federation or a union grouping preferably the nine protected states, and, then, that the territorial differences remaining in the region  ”be settled. He recalls that the first objective has been fully achieved, since Bahrain and Qatar, after proclaiming their independence, have become member countries of the United Nations and six others have formed the United Arab Emirates, expressing his hope that the seventh, Ras al- Khayma, will be joining shortly.

Sir Colin Crowe especially recalls that the second objective "  was also largely achieved  " when "  the Shah of Iran renounced the claims of his country on Bahrain, claims which had long been obstacles to the improvement of Arab-Iranian relations.  ". It indicates that of the four islands which are the subject of rival claims of the Arab Emirates and Iran, "  the most important, by far, was Bahrain, with a population of over 200,000 inhabitants  ". The second island for which "  a concerted settlement was finally achieved was Abu Moussa, administered by Chardja, with a population of some 800 inhabitants  ". According to this agreement, “ neither party has given up on claiming the island, nor recognized the other's claim. It was agreed that Iranian forces would be stationed on the island. A detachment has already arrived on the island and was greeted by representatives of the government of Chardja  ”.

The two other islands which are the subject of litigation, the Great Tomb and the Little Tomb “  this one uninhabited and that one with only about 150 inhabitants […] are close to the coast of Iran which has claimed them since. a long time  ”. Sir Colin Crowe “ deeply regrets  that it has not been possible to reach a negotiated settlement  ” on these islands, but points out that “  the end of the UK's special position and responsibilities towards the Gulf has demanded that we weigh the contradictory claims of neighboring states and take account of realities  ”. It is in the name of these realities that the British government considers that "this result represents a reasonable and acceptable basis for the future security of the region  ".

"  Silent diplomacy  "

Even if some Arab states intervene again to express "  extreme views  ", as Sir Colin Crowe had called them, on Somalia's proposal, "  consideration of the matter  " is postponed to "  allow quiet diplomacy. to exercise  ”. The Council meeting rose at 7.55 p.m.

This "  question  " seems to have caused only a "  fleeting bitterness  " between Iran and the United Arab Emirates and "  the silent diplomacy  ", mentioned by the representative of Somalia at the meeting of the Security Council, seems to have quickly dissipated tensions between the two countries. Imperial Iran recognized the newly created state and relations between the two countries very quickly normalized. The situation created by Iranian intervention was implicitly agreed to until the advent of the Islamic Republic in Iran in 1979.

The revolutionary aims of the new masters of Tehran and the ensuing war with Iraq from September 1980 exacerbated the tensions between Iran and its Sunni neighbors. The "question" of the islands of the Persian Gulf does not, however, arise sharply. Even if this dispute is regularly recalled in the press releases of the Gulf Cooperation Council, this evocation is rather a rhetoric without consequence.

Rising tensions

But, in April 1992, the Iranian authorities prevented a group of foreign nationals employed by the school, the medical center and the power station of the Emirates from entering Abu Moussa. Kamal Kharazi, then representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations declares that " people who are not residents of Abu Moussa do not have the right to stay on this island  " and the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ali Akbar Vélayati, affirms that "the 1971 agreement provided only for nationals of the emirate of Sharjah, the right to stay in Abu Moussa  ". Four months later, Iranian officials are again blocking around 100 foreign employees from accessing the island. The tension is accentuated between the two countries, when, on September 18, 1992, Ali Akbar Hachémi Rafsanjani, President of the Republic announces that the Iranian authorities have arrested foreign nationals in possession of weapons going illegally to the island of Abu Moussa.

On April 11, 2012, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , then President of the Republic, went to the island inaugurating a series of visits by parliamentarians and various other officials. Ahmadinejad's visit is seen by the Emirates as an unacceptable provocation and "  a flagrant violation of [his] sovereignty and [his] territorial integrity  ". This rise in tension is a turning point on this issue, as the rulers of the United Arab Emirates, but also other Arab countries claim the sovereignty of the UAE not only over the island of Abu Moussa, but also over the Great and Little Tombs. . This demand is taken up by the Gulf Cooperation Council, which intends to restore "  historical truth  " on the three islands.

The rapprochement announced between the two regional enemies of Iran, Israel and the United Arab Emirates , and in the current context of extreme tension between Iran and the United States against the backdrop of an unprecedented economic crisis caused by the sanctions American forces and the permanence of hazardous management, this territorial rivalry is potentially a major source of instability for the entire region.

Newsletter Receive all international news directly in your mailbox

Follow all the international news by downloading the RFI application

• Disputed territories
• Iran
• United Arab Emirates

On the same subject

Rejection of a US resolution to extend the arms embargo in Iran